While the last two questions are not CTQs, they may be valid questions 4. Is the rate law expected to hold at a lower temperature? This question is not a good CTQ because it is superficial and not sufficiently penetrating. Better would be Under what conditions might the activation energy and reaction order change in temperature.
This question is a good CTQ because it explores the assumptions under which the rate law might change, such as in Langmuir Hinschelwood kinetics. What equations should I use to solve the problem? This question is not a good CTQ. A similar, but better question is, What thought process led you to choose the CSTR equation for the case of constant volumetric flow rates? This question asks to describe the assumptions needed to arrive at the CSTR equation.
Do the experimental data taken to formulate the rate law justify the reaction order being in integer? This is a good CTQ because it probes the reason of perhaps rounding a reaction order of 1. What are the consequences of make the reaction order in integer? This is a good CTQ because it probes implications and consequences. This flow rate is quite high. Constant molar flow rates were assumed in the treatment of this question, how would your approach to this problem differ if this assumption were not valid?
Namely, "What intellectual standards does the program articulate and teach? And then when you explain what you mean, I think you will find that the person is not able to articulate any such standards. Thinking skills programs without intellectual standards are tailor-made for mis-instruction. For example, one of the major programs asks teachers to encourage students to make inferences and use analogies, but is silent about how to teach students to assess the inferences they make and the strengths and weaknesses of the analogies they use.
This misses the point. The idea is not to help students to make more inferences but to make sound ones, not to help students to come up with more analogies but with more useful and insightful ones. Question: What is the solution to this problem? How, as a practical matter, can we solve it?
Paul: Well, not with more gimmicks or quick fixes. Not with more fluff for teachers. Only with quality long-term staff development that helps the teachers, over an extended period of time, over years not months, to work on their own thinking and come to terms with what intellectual standards are, why they are essential, and how to teach for them. The State Department in Hawaii has just such a long-term, quality, critical thinking program see " mentor program ".
So that's one model your readers might look at. In addition, the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction is focused precisely on the articulation of standards for thinking.
I am hopeful that eventually, through efforts such as these, we can move from the superficial to the substantial in fostering quality student thinking. The present level of instruction for thinking is very low indeed. Question: But there are many areas of concern in instruction, not just one, not just critical thinking, but communication skills, problem solving, creative thinking, collaborative learning, self-esteem, and so forth.
How are districts to deal with the full array of needs? How are they to do all of these rather than simply one, no matter how important that one may be? Paul: This is the key. Everything essential to education supports everything else essential to education. It is only when good things in education are viewed superficially and wrongly that they seem disconnected, a bunch of separate goals, a conglomeration of separate problems, like so many bee-bees in a bag.
In fact, any well-conceived program in critical thinking requires the integration of all of the skills and abilities you mentioned above. Hence, critical thinking is not a set of skills separable from excellence in communication, problem solving, creative thinking, or collaborative learning, nor is it indifferent to one's sense of self-worth.
Question: Could you explain briefly why this is so? Paul: Consider critical thinking first. We think critically when we have at least one problem to solve. If there is no problem there is no point in thinking critically. The "opposite" is also true. Uncritical problem solving is unintelligible. There is no way to solve problems effectively unless one thinks critically about the nature of the problems and of how to go about solving them.
Thinking our way through a problem to a solution, then, is critical thinking, not something else. Furthermore, critical thinking, because it involves our working out afresh our own thinking on a subject, and because our own thinking is always a unique product of our self-structured experience, ideas, and reasoning, is intrinsically a new "creation", a new "making", a new set of cognitive and affective structures of some kind.
All thinking, in short, is a creation of the mind's work, and when it is disciplined so as to be well-integrated into our experience, it is a new creation precisely because of the inevitable novelty of that integration. And when it helps us to solve problems that we could not solve before, it is surely properly called "creative".
The "making" and the "testing of that making" are intimately interconnected. In critical thinking we make and shape ideas and experiences so that they may be used to structure and solve problems, frame decisions, and, as the case may be, effectively communicate with others.
The making, shaping, testing, structuring, solving, and communicating are not different activities of a fragmented mind but the same seamless whole viewed from different perspectives. Question: How do communication skills fit in? Paul: Some communication is surface communication, trivial communication--surface and trivial communication don't really require education.
All of us can engage in small talk, can share gossip. And we don't require any intricate skills to do that fairly well. Where communication becomes part of our educational goal is in reading, writing, speaking and listening. These are the four modalities of communication which are essential to education and each of them is a mode of reasoning. Each of them involves problems. Each of them is shot through with critical thinking needs.
Take the apparently simple matter of reading a book worth reading. The author has developed her thinking in the book, has taken some ideas and in some way represented those ideas in extended form. Our job as a reader is to translate the meaning of the author into meanings that we can understand.
This is a complicated process requiring critical thinking every step along the way. What is the purpose for the book? What is the author trying to accomplish? What issues or problems are raised? What data, what experiences, what evidence are given?
What concepts are used to organize this data, these experiences? How is the author thinking about the world? Is her thinking justified as far as we can see from our perspective? And how does she justify it from her perspective? How can we enter her perspective to appreciate what she has to say? All of these are the kinds of questions that a critical reader raises. And a critical reader in this sense is simply someone trying to come to terms with the text. So if one is an uncritical reader, writer, speaker, or listener, one is not a good reader, writer, speaker, or listener at all.
To do any of these well is to think critically while doing so and, at one and the same time, to solve specific problems of communication, hence to effectively communicate. Communication, in short, is always a transaction between at least two logics.
In reading, as I have said, there is the logic of the thinking of the author and the logic of the thinking of the reader. The critical reader reconstructs and so translates the logic of the writer into the logic of the reader's thinking and experience.
This entails disciplined intellectual work. The end result is a new creation; the writer's thinking for the first time now exists within the reader's mind. No mean feat!
Question: And self esteem? How does it fit in? Paul: Healthy self-esteem emerges from a justified sense of self-worth, just as self-worth emerges from competence, ability, and genuine success. If one simply feels good about oneself for no good reason, then one is either arrogant which is surely not desirable or, alternatively, has a dangerous sense of misplaced confidence. Teenagers, for example, sometimes think so well of themselves that they operate under the illusion that they can safely drive while drunk or safely take drugs.
They often feel much too highly of their own competence and powers and are much too unaware of their limitations. To accurately sort out genuine self-worth from a false sense of self-esteem requires, yes you guessed it, critical thinking.
Question: And finally, what about collaborative learning? Paul: Collaborative learning is desirable only if grounded in disciplined critical thinking. Without critical thinking, collaborative learning is likely to become collaborative mis-learning. It is collective bad thinking in which the bad thinking being shared becomes validated. Remember, gossip is a form of collaborative learning; peer group indoctrination is a form of collaborative learning; mass hysteria is a form of speed collaborative learning mass learning of a most undesirable kind.
We learn prejudices collaboratively, social hates and fears collaboratively, stereotypes and narrowness of mind, collaboratively. So there are a lot of important educational goals deeply tied into critical thinking just as critical thinking is deeply tied into them. Basically the problem in the schools is that we separate things, treat them in isolation and mistreat them as a result. What can teachers do to "kindle" this spark and keep it alive in education?
Paul: First of all, we kill the child's curiosity, her desire to question deeply, by superficial didactic instruction. Young children continually ask why. Why this and why that? And why this other thing? But we soon shut that curiosity down with glib answers, answers to fend off rather than to respond to the logic of the question.
In every field of knowledge, every answer generates more questions, so that the more we know the more we recognize we don't know. It is only people who have little knowledge who take their knowledge to be complete and entire.
If we thought deeply about almost any of the answers which we glibly give to children, we would recognize that we don't really have a satisfactory answer to most of their questions. Many of our answers are no more than a repetition of what we as children heard from adults.
We pass on the misconceptions of our parents and those of their parents. We say what we heard, not what we know. We rarely join the quest with our children.Paul: First of all, we kill the child's curiosity, her desire to question deeply, by superficial didactic instruction. With respect to large scale essay assessment, we know enough now about random sampling to be able to require extended reasoning and writing without having to pay for the individual assessment of millions of essays. Are we willing to learn new concepts and ideas? Below are some examples of critical thinking questions CTQ that are either superficial or don't use Socratic Questioning. A blue player grounds the ball. Communication, in short, is always a transaction between at least two logics. This question is a good CTQ because it explores the assumptions critical which the question law might change, critical as in Langmuir Hinschelwood kinetics. Paul: Some communication is surface communication, some communication--surface and trivial communication don't thinking require education. Customers have an opportunity to track the question of of your characters makes a long speech filled with some paper - type, will be ready to be.
Would you share your definition of critical thinking? Paul: To flourish, curiosity must evolve into disciplined inquiry and reflection. This question is not a good CTQ because it is superficial and not sufficiently penetrating.
Who would be affected by this? It is valuable because it can lead to knowledge, understanding, and insight; because it can help broaden, deepen, sharpen our minds, making us better, more humane, more richly endowed persons. One thing is painfully clear. They call upon us to do what no previous generation of teachers was ever called upon to do. Paul: Most of the national assessment we have done thus far is based on lower-order learning and thinking.
Her history revealed that she stopped using sugar in her coffee to lose weight, with a resultant weight loss of 30 lbs during the past 4 months. Everything essential to education supports everything else essential to education. Young children continually ask why. Intellectual curiosity is an important trait of mind, but it requires a family of other traits to fulfill it. Why is there a "2" in this equation? Asking questions that will not only give you the answers you are looking for but also open up a heap more information that than you were searching for.